Curiosity Rover spots mysterious 'UFO' zooming across the red planet's horizon

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Soulece
 


AFTER the picture I posted was shown the guy happened to say, and I quote, "Well that was easy".

You don't suppose he could have meant that the landing had gone as well as it could have?


Of course, I thought about it. And yes, its a possibility. But who's to know the real meaning?




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Has no-one considered that there could be radioactive particles whizzing about? Very similar to the Fukushima area, the webcam sometimes gets 'hits' from the high radiation in the area.

If the rover has a radioactive source which gives it power, there could be a particle escape or there could be another source of natural radiation close by which gives hits on the cmos/ccd. A possibility perhaps since they have not used radioactive energy sources in rovers before?

I do not think that there would be dead pixels on these cameras so early in the mission as NASA would have paid over the odds for a good squeaky-clean cmos to place in their cameras. You dont spend millions of dollars on a mission and then have a cheap camera part bolted to the rover. Plus, if they were dead pixels, you would probably not get more than one or two developing at a time, not 4 or 5 like we have here. I think we can rule out dead pixels 'cos even the MERs have only one or two after 6 years. As others have pointed out, sand or dust on the lens does not result in sharp spots but rather gives more of a blurr as can be seen in some of the other images linked above.

It will be interesting to see how the Martian wind magically "cleans the lenses" for them on this rover as it has done on the MERs in the past....

Anyone suggesting dead pixels, dust, sand etc must be a govmint employee, surely?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by qmantoo
 


Anyone suggesting dead pixels, dust, sand etc must be a govmint employee, surely?

Even the ones who point out that the spots appear in exactly the same location in the frame in all of the images from the camera?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by blackmetalmist
 
I don't think anything as unusual as aliens, alien craft, ruins, etc., would ever be posted for general viewing.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Probably floodlights they forgot to turn off in the Los Angeles studio where the hoax is being filmed.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Hey look... dirt !



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murad
Look the Newspapers know science is not going get any great headlines, despite this is a fairly serious event in human history. People are basicaly so stupid and dumb they dont actualy want to read about anything to do with the science behind this mission because it is boring to them.


it IS boring ... period.

You keep talking about "science" as if it's some sort of religion to you. Personally, I don't give a damn, wether you're muslim, christian, jew or a scientist. Religion is all the same, wether you know god, or are still lookiog for the god element. I just call it stupiditiy of people that have absolutely "zero" vision.

What's the goal of the mission to mars ... what's it supposed to do ... boring, yes boring ... more pictures, boring. dead planet, boring. maybe ice, boring.

nothing there ... if you find ice, so what ... what ya gonna do with it. huh ... where's the vision, where is the future vision, that makes "THIS" one step beyond.

Do you comprehend what I said ... for this to be interrested, to ANYONE ... there has to be a vision, where this activity is "one step beyond".

Now, I'm going to fret here ...

Oh my god, did you see that ... "is it a man" NO! "is it a plane?" NO. "is it a UFO?" NO. what is it? what is it? it's something flying on the screen ... "is it a fly?" NO!

How can we make this spec on the screen, to be a spectacle so people will rally and buy our new version of Toal Recall ... anyone? Maybe tell them, we probably cought one of our own satellites on picture, while it wa orbitting mars?

No, no ... le'ts call it "an alien". That's exciting right ... geesh.

Vision is what counts, not going to mars on another "man landed on the moon" mission ... well replace moon with mars here. Or maybe we can call it "man landed on the _____" put your favorite dead planet instead of the underline.

Or, it's another "rover mission". Yeah ... look, we got more pictures ... of a DESERT. Did you see the DESERT guys ... mars has a DESERT. Oh wait, let's try to boost up public opinion and sprout back to life the "mars" scenario ... let's remake the move "Total recall". YEAH!

It's the attack of the clones ... the "remakes!" A remake of spider man, what are they going to call it ... "It's spider man version 1.1.1.1.1.1.5", or maybe they'll find a new version system, just for a remake "Spider Man, or Super Man" (place your favorite movie here), "version 1.2-alpha45.remake29999999.movie".

Oh my God, we're gonna be so excited ... it's a new version of Total Recall ... we're all gonna pee in our panties, and wanna learn all about mars again..

Sorry, I think the US has turned into a bunch of morons ... these are old visions, from back in the 60's for christs sake. It's Von Brauns old visions, and nothing is going to make it interresting again. It's a dead planet ... and even if we got really horny, we couldn't terraform it in a million years. And there are no questions this planet can answer, that is prominent for our lives. It's just another "moon", except this one orbitting around the sun.

I don't care who you have running NASA, but it's an organisation of dummies. A man, without vision, is not a man ... and certainly not someone who should be running an organisation like NASA. The future, we will see more of the Chinese going into space. But the problem with the Chinese, is that they have no goal to go into space ... their only goal, is to catch up with the west.

Do you understand this scenario? You're a Chinese ... you have no vision, your just copy-cat'ing. Trying to prove you too are smart and can do a lot of things ... like all the other "gui lao". Now, has a chinese ever asked himself, why he calls foreigners "gui lao", if all they themselves wanna do is to try and "catch up"?

Guess what, anybody can if they got the money resources to do it ...

But it takes a genius to have a vision, that is outside the box ... it doesn't take any genius, to copy it.

NOW, GET OUT OF YOUR CHAIR AND FIND SOMEONE WITH A VISION THAT IS OUTSIDE THE BOX.

edit on 23/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I personally think that it’s incredibly naive and somewhat egocentric to think that, despite the huge age and massive vastness of the entire universe, that there isn’t something else out there. Considering in the grand scheme of things we have been here for what would seem a few seconds in the time line.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Looks to me like the first object is merely a dust cloud/storm. They are frequent on Mars and looking into the light/sun as it appears the camera is, then those clouds would appear opaque and moving, even rising in a dense mass. The second one looks like it may possibly be an orbiting object? Maybe other planets, maybe even earth or a bright star? Both images and video make me wonder if anyone knows at what focal length the Rover camera is set to? How wide an angle and at what pixel density, etc? Knowing those parameters would answer rule out several possibilities, what is left is...
Anyone? Buehler? S&F cool find.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by rambo1112
 


Hey! This's Awesome!~
I'm interest in UFO & Alien!
I want 2 know about the problem of Bermuda Trangle , Japanese Dragon Trangle & The Great Lakes Trangle
edit on 23-8-2012 by Crazy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Hasn't NASA has already confirmed the first set of images was the crash/explosion from the descent rocket/parachute stage?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
seems like a huge craft off in the distance wow!



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
All we ever see is blips. This could be anything. Every ufo clip I have seen is these blips not really showing anything. How hard can it be to catch a good footage with all the technology available today. It's time for the real stuff. I'm still a believer....but after 2012 if anything has not been shown, I may change my mind.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
Its dead pixels. I forget where I read it. Think it was i09.

Eta oh. It even basically tells you that at linked article. Derp.
edit on 22-8-2012 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)

The static "orbs" are dead pixels. The one with moving "orbs" is not dead pixels at all as they don't move around like that.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
the image of the foating orb may bee a craft or just some type of reflection of some typereply to post by juleol
 



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I read the article on the Daily Mail website this morning (UK).

I'd pay good money to know how a 'dead pixel' (as one analyst labels it) moves along the freaking horizon whilst the camera remains completely stationary!


Seriously. Is Curiosity going mental like Hal out of 2001: Space Odyssey,


It'll be rolling around screaming 'Exterminate! Exterminate!' next!



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
I just read that the fish eye camera image that shows a small bright item moving in frames across the image is apparently a dead pixel..

Fine BUT if that's a single camera taking taking still frames and clearly NOT changing position as you can tell from the rocks on the ground then shouldn't that DEAD pixel NOT move as it clearly does.

It should stay in the same place as the camera isn't moving in any direction so unless what is happening is a dead pixel happens, unkills itself and then another pixel further along dies and then undies and so on and so on then this is the worlds most revived pixel camera ever known!

Or are we saying that the fish eye image is made up of multiple images and stitched which does not sound right as 1. its a fish eye lens, they use them for instant panorama shots because of its wide view and 2. try stitching a multiple fish eye series of shots, good luck with that, the image would be a mess.
edit on 23-8-2012 by Mclaneinc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by blackmetalmist
 


The landscape looks different in every image that the light appears

How can it? The rover wasn't moving. The camera cannot be aimed. The hazams do not do video. It was a single image. This one:
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
edit on 8/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

So you cant take several pictures in a row on a stationary rover?? That is news to me...
And like previous poster said, the lighting changes from each frame.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
wasn't this concluded to be dust or particles stuck on the lenses, then during movement creates the illusion that these dust "orbs" are moving.

i do see the orbs but i dont believe they-re ufos just lenses that got dirty during landing



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Mars is hit by asteroids and meteors all the time.. so it could be something as simple as that... I would only ever suspect a UFO if it made some kind of strange flight pattern to indicate intelligent control... it doesn't do that


By the object's very nature - it's flying and it's unifidentified - it's a UFO.
edit on 23-8-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-8-2012 by Sicksicksick because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join